Re: New Langage "Tyl-Seok": Similar ideas? (Was: Translation pattern of `to have'?)

Tommie L Powell <tommiepowell@...> writes:

> Same here.
> Same here.
> Same here.
> Same here.
> Same here.
> Same here.
> Same here.
Haha! That's great! :-)

> Is your method of handling the absence of a copula
> related to your method of embedding structure?
> If so, how?  (Mine is, and I'd be shocked but thrilled
> if you've hit upon the same sort of solution as I did.)
Well, let's try to sort this out.  I don't know whether my method of
handling the copula is related to the embedding structure.  I'll give
some explained examples.  I'll mark the verbs (this category can be
identified in phrases only) with .V, the agent with .AGT, the patient
with .PAT.

   Tyl-Seok: lazy    I.
             lazy.V  I.PAT
             `I ('m controlled/harassed by) the property of being lazy'
   English:  I am lazy.


   Tyl-Seok: human    I
             human.V  I.PAT
             `I ('m controlled/harassed by) the property of being (a) human'
   English:  I am a human.

   Tyl-Seok: I      violent
             I.AGT  violent.V
             `I (controll that I have) the property of being violent.'
   English:  I am violent.

The predicates in these sentences can be viewed taking either a
patient or a agent that has the given property.  Nouns that originally
have valence~0 (like ,human') can be raised to valence~1 (requiring a
patient).  They then describe the patient.

Some predicates, like `violent' require the agent slot to be used
because control is involved.

So the copula is not needed, because each property describing word can
be used as a `verb'.

For equality rather than sub-set/property relation, this construction
can also be used:

    Tyl-Seok: Peter I
              Peter.V I.PAT
              `I'm (controlled by being) Peter'

However, a complex phrase `to be equal to X' can be formed, too,
yielding another structure (and here comes embedding) that has
an open patient slot:

    equal-to Peter    = `being equal to Peter'
    equal-to Peter  I  = `I'm ((controll by being) equal to) Peter'
   [equal-to.V Peter.PAT].V I.PAT

Maybe this answers something?  Well, because of the highly ambiguous
structures of the language, using composed phrases as new verbs is
rare.  Two patients after each may be disambiguated by using another
verb `to control' or `to harass' or `to please', I've not decided yet.
Looks like this then:

   equal-to peter control I
   [equal-to.V Peter.PAT].AGT control.V I.PAT

I want to stress that both using `equal-to' and `to control' are mere
stressing mechanisms.

I also have a question wrt. your embedding.  I my language, the
following sentences are all translated to the same phrase.

There are particles to clarify the meaning if it is impossible to
infer from context.  I wonder how you handle these sentences without
particles.  Or are your structures different on a more general level?

> **Tommie